Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: brewster Date: Apr 24, 2003 4:52pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shows better served as tar files? (and one-at-a-time also supported)

We would not need to store tar'ed and untar'ed version: just the tar'ed version and there is a cgi script that allows a tar file to be pulled apart at runtime rather than storing it untar'ed.

I am all for a download client. if we can use the browser that might be a good standard alternative.

also, with mirroring and freecache (and I believe bittorrent) it is helpful to have one big file. I have not done the analysis, but I would imagine most downloaders download a full show rather than a single track (especially because they are named with the show sequence rather than the title).

my 2 cents.

-brewster

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: Apr 24, 2003 10:08pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shows better served as tar files? (and one-at-a-time also supported)

since we would not need to duplicate files on the server end, i think this could be great.

one question: since a cgi is used to pull apart the tar file, what about ftp downloaders?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: brewster Date: Apr 25, 2003 12:53am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shows better served as tar files? (and one-at-a-time also supported)


I would think ftp downloaders would just download the whole tar file. ftp downloaders would not see the individual songs. that is a downside. I dont know how big a downside.

-brewster